I had to look up “MC” to be able to understand this. It means Marginal Cost.
EDIT I still don’t understand it, I think. My read is: someone named Coase theorized that monopolists of durable goods will actually sell their products at marginal cost because of some weird mind game with their customers (the obvious unwritten corollary being that monopolies are fine). This is obviously untrue and we all know plenty of examples (pharma anyone? plenty pills are mega durable). Nevertheless, somehow economists cheered at this theory and called it beautiful, despite how obviously ridiculous it is. But now the authors of this post debunked it with real data to, I hope, nobody’s surprise.
I am not an economist, but I think that the theory is that prices do go to MC in a competitive market. Coase's theorem was for an uncompetitive market. (In fact, a monopoly - the most uncompetitive market possible.)
The conjecture assumes durable goods, so it doesn't apply to medicine. Also no resale, so that narrows the scope even more.
The gist of the conjecture is that if the customers can wait out for price drops and the monopolist wants to sell their thing, then after a few rounds of "he knows that we know that..." the price ends up to be the marginal cost.
Now, real world disagrees with the model, so next steps are to examine why this happens and maybe discover some new economic interaction.
There is durable good which means that consumers will only buy once (pharma doesn't seem to fit here).
And there is the monopolist. So there shouldn't be any outside options, as the last paragraph claims in the OP.
And the marginal costs seem to be constant. Which is only the case for things like data or software. For most goods, however, one needs to invest in production facilities to increase output for a bigger number of goods. In this case the marginal costs will increase as well and so it would make sense to first sell a lower number of goods for a higher price.
Somehow, it doesn't quite add up for me, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is. It reminds me of the unexpected hanging paradox.
Some aspects of the conjecture make sense and are observable:
Consider e.g. Steam (digital video games): Prices are discounted over time because of "greed" (=> desire to sell the same product to customers that value it less than the first wave).
Customers do adapt to this, and expect future discounts (sales) at release date already, and defer their purchase accordingly (despite valueing it higher!).
But in reality, customers are not 100% rational, don't have perfect information (on seller strategy), and the product value (to buyers) changes over time too (typically mostly downward), so the base assumptions are difficult to find in reality.
As far as I can tell that is indeed, "it". What is maybe more interesting is that it took this long to find data that shows it wrong given we have so many examples in history of it being in fact wrong.
What seems intuitively wrong as a layperson new to this about Coase's theory, is that the "surprising" collapse in prices to marginal cost "in period 1" assumes that consumers have no marginal utility, and thus no price sensitivity, of consuming the good sooner rather than later.
How is this theory taken seriously when people have other motivators to buy durable goods early even when they know for certain the price will go down but not when?
EDIT I still don’t understand it, I think. My read is: someone named Coase theorized that monopolists of durable goods will actually sell their products at marginal cost because of some weird mind game with their customers (the obvious unwritten corollary being that monopolies are fine). This is obviously untrue and we all know plenty of examples (pharma anyone? plenty pills are mega durable). Nevertheless, somehow economists cheered at this theory and called it beautiful, despite how obviously ridiculous it is. But now the authors of this post debunked it with real data to, I hope, nobody’s surprise.
That can’t be it, can it?
Buyers don't just pop up on timestamp zero and remain unchanged. They anticipate price changes, potential new buyers come in, the market is dynamic.
I also don't understand why this only affects monopolies. The same logic should dictate that all products and services fall towards MC?
The gist of the conjecture is that if the customers can wait out for price drops and the monopolist wants to sell their thing, then after a few rounds of "he knows that we know that..." the price ends up to be the marginal cost.
Now, real world disagrees with the model, so next steps are to examine why this happens and maybe discover some new economic interaction.
There is durable good which means that consumers will only buy once (pharma doesn't seem to fit here).
And there is the monopolist. So there shouldn't be any outside options, as the last paragraph claims in the OP.
And the marginal costs seem to be constant. Which is only the case for things like data or software. For most goods, however, one needs to invest in production facilities to increase output for a bigger number of goods. In this case the marginal costs will increase as well and so it would make sense to first sell a lower number of goods for a higher price.
Somehow, it doesn't quite add up for me, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is. It reminds me of the unexpected hanging paradox.
Consider e.g. Steam (digital video games): Prices are discounted over time because of "greed" (=> desire to sell the same product to customers that value it less than the first wave).
Customers do adapt to this, and expect future discounts (sales) at release date already, and defer their purchase accordingly (despite valueing it higher!).
But in reality, customers are not 100% rational, don't have perfect information (on seller strategy), and the product value (to buyers) changes over time too (typically mostly downward), so the base assumptions are difficult to find in reality.
If that fails. Coase's argument fails. No?
There are a limited number of iPhones....?
Do either of those examples shed light on where Coase went wrong that agree or disagree with the authors?